Episodes
Sunday Nov 18, 2012
His Holiness... Kurt Russell
Sunday Nov 18, 2012
Sunday Nov 18, 2012
There are people who you cannot badmouth in front of Jim or Clarkson without putting yourself at risk. Very high on that list is a man named Kurt Russell. He's just... he's Kurt FUCKING Russell! He has been in some of the best movies ever, had a cartoonish batting average as a minor league baseball player, and his name was the last thing Walt Disney ever wrote. What more do you need? The man started out... Grew into... Took some time off to do this... Where he had a .580 batting average (which is UNREAL). Before becoming this guy... This guy... And this guy... And since that wasn't enough, he decided to step back and reinvent trash talking as this guy... So, join us this week as we discuss the man, the myth, the FUCKING LEGEND that is... His Holiness... Kurt Russell Also, call us at 512-666-RANT or on skype at The_Film_Thugs or e-mail us at thefilmthugs@gmail.com And we will play your message on the show!!! Also, e-mail any and all questions about any and all subjects to thugquestions@gmail.com for our upcoming "Ask the Film Thugs" show. Rate and review us on iTunes, check us out on Stitcher Smart Radio, and... Buy some Kurt Russell stuff on Amazon!
Thursday Mar 08, 2012
Thursday Mar 08, 2012
“Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip,” Free Speech, The First Amendment, and the importance of television comedy.
A controversial person says something controversial on television. Uproar ensues. One side screams that the statement is reprehensible, indefensible, and completely unacceptable and threatens to boycott network sponsors until the offending individual is fired.
Who am I talking about?
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly."
- Bill Maher, September 2001
"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
- Rush Limbaugh, September 2003
Each was equally attacked and defended.
He was making a statement about the over use of military force and how easy it is for us to attack the smaller guy.
He was making a statement about how the media handles race in America.
He called the members of our military who put their lives on the line every day for a shamefully low salary cowards.
He’s a hateful racist, this proves it.
What amuses me is that both of these statements drew extreme reactions from the same people in totally opposite ways. The people who attacked Maher, for the most part, defended Limbaugh and those who defended Maher, attacked Limbaugh.
Each side had its point.
“He said something politically incorrect on a show called ‘Politically Incorrect.’ What did you expect?”
“Hey, you hired Limbaugh because he is controversial, and now he said something controversial. What did you expect?”
“What he said was irresponsible, insulting, and absolutely unacceptable. This sort of statement is damaging to America and our military.”
“This type of racist attitude has plagued our country for far too long. There is no place for it on national television and any network that allows it is complicit in fostering racism.”
In both cases The First Amendment was invoked, and there were fevered denunciations of how it did not apply in this case.
Both men lost their jobs.
Here’s the thing…
The First Amendment has nothing to do with either of them.
Period. End of statement.
But how can that be?
Well, most people don’t have any idea what The First Amendment is, does, or means.
Before I go on let me stress something. I am a strict Constitutionalist. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, it’s a little document that I happen to believe every single effing word of. I am a firm believer in and defender of The First Amendment.
However, neither one of these cases has anything to do with it.
Let’s start by taking a look at it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Pretty cut and dried. However, as the ABC television network fired both Maher and Limbaugh, so The First Amendment did not enter into it.
Let’s look at it again.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The thing people don’t realize is that The First Amendment does not say, “You have the right to say whatever you want in whatever way you want to say it, in whatever place you want, and at whatever time you want.”
What it does say is, “The US Government DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to prevent you from expressing yourself in whatever way you see fit as long as you are not breaking any laws while you do it.” So if your chosen form of expression is murdering schoolchildren, you are out of luck, but if your chosen form of expression is joking about the murder of schoolchildren, much as I would not be OK with it, you are free to do so.
So, if the government didn’t step in then what did happen? Well, in both cases, was a group of citizens got together and voiced displeasure at the comments and threatened to boycott the advertisers of the shows if they continued to provide financial support for the views presented.
Let’s look one more time.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Neither man lost his job because of governmental censorship. Both lost their jobs because they displayed shockingly poor judgment and said something that put their employer in a position to make a tough call. It’s like the ESPN online editor who was fired for the “Chink in the Armor” caption on a photo of Jeremy Lin. Intentional or not, he put his boss in a bad position and got nailed for it.
Did Congress intercede, make a law, or otherwise pressure the network to fire either of the people? No, it did not.
The same Constitutional Amendment that protected and empowered Maher and Limbaugh protected and empowered those who disagreed with them.
That’s the thing about freedom of speech; it goes both ways.
Do I think each of these men had the right to express his opinion? Yes, yes I do.
Do I think “The Dixie Chicks” had the right to express their disdain with George W. Bush? Yes, yes I do.
Do I think Tony Bennett has the right to go on Howard Stern and say things like, “They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop,” about 9/11? Yes, yes I do.
Do I think that the people who were upset with Limbaugh, Maher, The Dixie Chicks, and Tony Bennett have the right to publicly denounce and boycott them because of it?
Yes, yes I do.
You have the right to say what you want, but I also have the right to disagree with or ignore what you are saying. I am also not required to support you when say what you want.
So if someone pulls your comment off a message board they are not violating your first amendment right, they are simply refusing to provide you a platform to espouse your views. It’s like if your neighbor puts a sign in your front yard supporting a candidate you disagree with, you aren’t violating his or her First Amendment rights by taking it down. But you are if you try to get the government to remove one from your neighbor’s yard.
People tend to go with Voltaire on the subject of free speech, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”
I love that quote. It is probably my favorite, but I also like to thrown in a little Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” on top of it.
Today we have become a nation of cowards who hide behind The First Amendment and use it to cover those who say things that speak to our own beliefs and actively attempt to quiet any opposing viewpoints.
Do we celebrate the endless choice we have in media, or do we obsess on the outlets with differing views and attempt to silence them?
Hell, it was barely a year ago when there was a tragic shooting in Arizona and before the motives of the shooter could be looked into there were people attempting to place blame on cable news and talk radio and people pushing for a “Fairness in Media Doctrine” that would place government mandated restrictions on editorial content.
Then it turned out that the shooter was a deeply disturbed, completely apolitical schizophrenic and the furor died down, but that doesn’t change the fact that it happened. That’s right, we live in a world where compassion for people whose lives were torn apart by a lunatic has been replaced with blatant opportunism and an attempt to silence those you do not agree with.
In the end it just boils down to some long buried evolutionary tick that dates back to when we were living in caves. As humans we have this odd tick where ideas and ideologies we agree with make us feel very happy and secure, and ideas we don’t agree with make us angry. No matter how evolved you are this does apply to you to some degree. You may not fly into a rage because someone is out of step with your ideology, but it does provoke some small level of anger.
And it’s happening again. People are again screaming for Limbaugh’s head because he called some girl a slut. I don’t fall on either side of this particular issue because I find it an immensely trivial waste of media attention. It’s not an issue to me because I don’t really care what Limbaugh thinks, so why should I care what he says?
But, people are jumping all over it as some sort of excuse to get Limbaugh off the air. Yet those screaming out were oddly silent when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a “dumb twat,” described other conservative women as “bimbos,” “cunts,” and “sluts,” on his show and has joked about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. I’m not saying that either person is correct in using these terms, but if one is sexist then the other is sexist. I am wondering where the outrage is at Maher and when women’s groups will begin boycotting HBO. The answer is they won’t because as one woman I discussed this with the other night so eloquently stated, “Palin is a twat.” So I guess misogyny is totally acceptable if you happen to disagree with the woman being degraded. My, how far we have come.
In no way am I defending the content of Rush’s comment, I was actually quite reluctant to mention it here because people will perceive a political statement I was not trying to make. I think he was out of line for saying it, but I also think that the people who are so indignant about it need to admit that their problem is with the person who said it, not what was said.
Now the real question…
What does this have to do with “Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip?”
Well, this is a show that deals quite extensively with the issues of free speech, network censorship, and religious freedom. It also, inadvertently, deals directly with the very hypocrisy that I mention above.
I love living in this day and age because not that long ago shows like this were forgotten or relegated to AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, a place where production companies dump the shows they can’t make money off of. That’s right, military, you are risking your lives for little money and moving your family around the world constantly, but at least you get a few episodes of “Hawaiian Heat,” “Condo,” and two month old daytime soap operas to keep you and yours entertained). But today a largely forgotten, single season show can somehow provoke a 5000+ word 10 page article from some hack with a podcast.
Were I forced to describe “Studio 60,” in simple terms… well, it’s kind of like “Network,” meets “The West Wing,” by way of 70’s era “Saturday Night Live.”
This thing should have been a slam-dunk. This was Aaron Sorkin coming off the massive success of “The West Wing,” writing a show about an SNL analogue with Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford, there was virtually no way this thing could fail.
But somehow it did.
How?
Was it because it came out at the same time as “30 Rock?”
Was it too revolutionary?
Was it just bad?
The “30 Rock” thing is foolish to me. Is there more than one successful cop show on TV? Is there more than one successful medical show? Ok, then your argument is invalid. To say that it failed because it came out at the same time as “30 Rock” is like saying that “Scrubs” was destined to fail because “ER” was on the air. Yes, they were both set in an ER and were both about doctors but they were completely different takes on that world.
I don’t know if it could be called revolutionary because it was essentially the same format as “The West Wing.” Yeah, it was taking on a different topic, but that isn’t revolutionary in and of itself.
Bad isn’t a word I would use. Granted, it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad. Worst I could say is it was good. That’s all, just good.
So, what was the problem?
It’s a good show, but it is also a very self-important and preachy show.
When it comes to preaching in entertainment viewers tend to fall into two categories, they either completely agree and the preaching is invigorating and just hammers home how right everything they believe is, or they don’t agree and they find it annoying, off putting, and condescending. I tend to watch with a bit more scientific detachment. I studied media extensively. I know how people interact with it and how it impacts society. I know the tricks and the traps so I tend to watch with less in WHAT is being said than in HOW it’s being said.
The politics of this show are pretty firmly worn on the sleeve, which is to be expected from the creators of “The West Wing,” but the show failed to reach that level of popularity. I think the problem comes from the setting. Politics is a world that people understand the hardships of. I mean… if a president or a senator screws up the ramifications are pretty significant. But a TV show, especially a SNL style show… there isn’t as much sympathy. Everyone takes his or her job seriously, but for some reason people in the entertainment industry take that to the next level. Just watch an awards show like The Oscars or The Emmys and you will see how INCREDIBLY important these people take their work, as they should. Hell everyone should, but when you present that egotism as a vehicle for entertainment, you run into trouble.
Essentially, the problem is that it’s a drama about comedy and like any drama about comedy the show goes to great pains to make sure you know how important comedy is to the world. In fact, it takes comedy so seriously that it ceases to be funny anymore. Watching this show you get the feeling that our world as we know it would be thrown into a second dark age where intellectuals are burned at the stake, science is replaced by superstition, and religion is the law were it not for shows like Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show.
The series kicks off moments before the titular show within a show is set to go live. Show producer Wes Mendell is informed by the network’s standards and practices attorney that a sketch has to be pulled for fear of protests from the easily offended Christian right. Aside from the logistical nightmare of having a big gap blown into the middle of a life show about to go to air, Mendell feels that this is just another sign of how his once important show has been watered down.
As the show begins with yet another lazy “look how dumb George W. Bush is” sketch, Mendell breaks. He walks on set and stops the sketch, telling the audience that it isn’t funny and then launches into the following rant.
“We’re all being lobotomized by this country’s most influential industry, that’s just thrown in the towel on any endeavor to do anything that doesn’t include the courting of 12-year-old boys. Not even the smart 12-year-olds — the stupid ones, the idiots. Of which there are plenty, thanks in no small measure to this network. So why don’t you just change the channel? Turn off your TVs. Do it right now. Go ahead.
They say there’s a struggle between art and commerce. Well, there’s always been a struggle between art and commerce, and now I’m telling you, art is getting its ass kicked, and it’s making us mean, and it’s making us bitchy, it’s making us cheap punks. That’s not who we are. People are having contests to see how much they can be like Donald Trump? We’re eating worms for money. “Who Wants To Screw My Sister?” Guys are getting killed in a war that’s got theme music and a logo.
That remote in your hand is a crack pipe. Oh yeah, every once in a while we pretend to be appalled. It’s pornography, and it’s not even good pornography. They’re just this side of snuff films, and friends, that’s what’s next, ’cause that’s all that’s left.”
– Wes Mendell (Judd Hirsch), Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip
Wow! First off, it’s a good speech, because that’s what Aaron Sorkin does, he writes good speeches.
But let’s look closer at it because herein lies the problem with this show.
We’re all being lobotomized by this country’s most influential industry, that’s just thrown in the towel on any endeavor to do anything that doesn’t include the courting of 12-year-old boys. Not even the smart 12-year-olds — the stupid ones, the idiots. Of which there are plenty, thanks in no small measure to this network. So why don’t you just change the channel? Turn off your TVs. Do it right now. Go ahead.
That is a powerful opening, but one that I have a bit of a problem with. So, television is to blame? Not the parents who allow kids to do whatever they want without consequences. Not the lack of parents in some instances where kids have no guidance. Not the culture that places more value on coolness than on education. NO! TELEVISION is the problem.
There is also a lot of arrogance in this statement. So, television is all powerful and everything that is put out is either high art meant to better society, or garbage for stupid 12 years olds. Wow!
So, a show like “The West Wing,” wouldn’t stand a chance at surviving 7 seasons, 156 episodes, or landing 94 Emmy nominations with 26 wins, or average 13 million viewers per episode. Oh, wait… I guess a lot of dumb 12 year olds are really into politics.
Also, what about people who work hard, very hard, and want to come home and relax for a while. Look down your nose all you want, but if you do you have lost any claim you might have towards populism. Most people have jobs that are a slight bit harder than working on a TV show, and by dismissing them you are essentially saying that you are better than they are and that what you do is more important.
I go off on the really bad mainstream TV and movies, but I don’t attack the audience. People work hard and want something to help them stop thinking about work every now and then. Life sucks. Yeah, it could be worse, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t pretty terrible a lot of the time. So I see value in anything that makes it suck a little bit less for a while. Watch Preston Sturgis’s “Sullivan’s Travels” for a much more poetic take on the issue.
They say there’s a struggle between art and commerce. Well, there’s always been a struggle between art and commerce, and now I’m telling you, art is getting its ass kicked, and it’s making us mean, and it’s making us bitchy, it’s making us cheap punks. That’s not who we are. People are having contests to see how much they can be like Donald Trump? We’re eating worms for money. “Who Wants To Screw My Sister?” Guys are getting killed in a war that’s got theme music and a logo.
Who is this “we?” Does he mean all of the viewing public or does he mean people who work in TV?
I think he meant the former but is correct about the latter.
TV doesn’t make people mean, life makes people mean. Having a shitty job, a boring marriage, and ungrateful kids makes you mean. That’s nothing new.
TV however, yeah that has gotten meaner, bitchier, and cheaper.
Yeah, we watch “The Apprentice” and “Fear Factor,” but you made it. YOU did, not us. You put it on the air and we were fascinated by it. But this is nothing new. It’s just the digital version of the traveling sideshow.
I don’t watch most reality TV but there are a few that I do get into. There is an inescapable drama to them. If you don’t believe me, try it out. Check your high mindedness and just watch a few episodes. It might do nothing for you, but odds are you will find yourself getting sucked further into the drama than you would care to admit.
Guess what, that is where the money is. I have a hard time hearing someone complain about art and commerce when their commerce is art and they make more money in a day than most people make in a year doing it. If they care more about the art than the commerce then why do they renegotiate contracts? Why do they hold out for more money? If the art is all that matters than you should be willing to do it for whatever you are lucky enough to get. But don’t ask for more money and then act surprised when the person paying you has to do something that will bring in more money. Everybody is looking to wet their beaks, so don’t go thinking you are superior.
That remote in your hand is a crack pipe. Oh yeah, every once in a while we pretend to be appalled. It’s pornography, and it’s not even good pornography. They’re just this side of snuff films, and friends, that’s what’s next, ’cause that’s all that’s left.”
You are correct, once a network figures out how to make money off snuff films they will hire writers, producers, and actors and start making money that way. And you will show up to work and write, produce, and act in them. You will cash your checks, buy your houses, hire your domestic staff, and complain about the hand that is shoveling the money to you.
Right off the bat this show wants you to know how important it is. Without us, you are left in the all consuming abyss of reality TV and pornography.
At this point it really does sound as though I dislike the show. That’s not entirely true. I think it’s interesting and has some really good ideas, but it’s more an exercise in hubris and pretension than anything else.
This show is exactly what you would expect from Sorkin at this stage in his career. It is sharply written, tightly paced, and brilliantly acted. He creates a world and then fills it with interesting, compelling characters. It also wears its politics on its sleeve, takes itself a bit too seriously, and can be a bit preachy.
Granted, there is a fair amount of self-deprecation, like when the based on Sorkin character Matt Albie states plainly, “Look, I hate Los Angeles just like everybody else, but I have to work here because in any other part of the country I'm unemployable.” He realizes that what he does, and does well (there is no shortage of reference to his genius), is so specialized that he is helpless anywhere else in the world. But at the same time the importance of the show is greatly overblown. It’s a funny TV show, not the cure for cancer. Yeah, it’s important in some regards, but if we are being completely honest… it’s a TV show. To me it’s only really important because it employs people, (a lot of people, not just the actors) and provides the audience with an escape.
What gets me is the handling of religion. I am not a religious person at all, so this isn’t some bible beater bemoaning yet another assault on his faith. The problem I have is that the general mocking of faith as a catch all for “edgy” comedy. It’s about as shocking as that feminist (be said feminist male or female) denouncing sports as homoerotic, or men using big sticks to make up for their deficiencies. Yes, penis imagery, how shocking! It’s lazy and hacky, pure and simple. But the network not letting you say “Jesus Christ” as an expletive is not the same as the government not allowing it. It’s also not the same as having your hours cut at an already underpaying job. Yeah, it’s annoying and you will complain about it, but you will complain in your Range Rover as you drive to your home in Beverly Hills.
The heart of my problem with the show is that it is a show that begs to be called brave, but does so by taking on easy targets… conservative Christians.
Yes, there is an attempt to present a conservative Christian character in Harriet Hayes star of the show within the show, and they make damned sure you know that she is a conservative Christian by mentioning her religion damned near every time she is on screen. Do people really do this, and if so… really? What kind of prick are you? You have a friend or coworker with different beliefs and values… so you handle it by mentioning it in almost every interaction. Talk about straw man tactics. You want to be brave, don’t make her religion such a bit topic of discussion. They even give her character a romantic past with Matthew Perry’s character to add some drama.
The thing is, in my opinion, this relationship presents a blatant hypocrisy that is the root of the problem I have with many free speech defenders. Matt Albie (Perry) was in a relationship with this conservative Christian woman, but ended the relationship because she appeared on “The 700 Club” to promote her album of spiritual songs. He objects to the content of the show and completely disagrees with the worldview of the host. So, she appeared on a show that he found offensive and should therefore not be validated. The man who wrote “Crazy Christians,” and pushed for it to be shown regardless of who would be offended by it could not be with someone who appeared on a show that presented views he found offensive. If this is not the dictionary definition of hypocrisy, then I evidently have no idea what that word means.
But my problem with the relationship goes way beyond the hypocrisy. Matt is a vocal atheist, she is a devout Christian and in one montage they show a continuing argument that ran the length of their relationship. Basically, Matt had to voice his disapproval with her religion at every juncture by calling her a “Bible beater,” saying things like “you believe in fairy tales,” and throwing statistics of abstinence pledges in her face to mock her appearance at a Catholic groups fundraiser. Now, one would that that as an atheist myself I wouldn’t have a problem with this, but I found it more insulting and offensive than I can say. For me it’s a question of respect. I may not agree with your beliefs, but I know that they are important to you and if I have any respect for you as a person I will not go around insulting those beliefs just for the hell of it. I couldn’t believe the love story because I saw Matt as fundamental disrespectful of Harriet’s beliefs.
Granted, they try to redeem Albie by having him admit to his hypocrisy. He created a sketch that called attention to Dick Cheney coming to Hollywood to pitch studios on patriotic films and how terrible and dangerous he thought it was, but admitted that he wouldn’t have minded at all had it been a democratic administration doing it. Here’s the thing calling out your hypocrisy doesn’t magically wash your hypocrisy away; it just shows that you don’t mind being a hypocrite. That is not what a brave or intellectually honest person does.
You want to talk brave? Look at “South Park.” This show is not only smartly written and relevant, but it is completely fearless in how it approaches even the most delicate subject matter. In its 15 year, 233 episode run it has been censored two times, and for the same reason. Trey Parker and Matt Stone are clear, if making fun of one thing is ok, then making fun of everything is ok. It’s difficult to pin down the politics of it. Every side is attacked with equal fervor. They mock conservatives and liberals alike. The show exists to take on taboos on all sides.
Oh, and the two instances of censorship? They attempted to show and image of the Prophet Mohammed. That’s it. Not an image of Mohammed doing anything untoward, just Mohammed entering a room. They went so far as to “hide” him by drawing a large mascot costume, but were still told that it was “offensive to Muslims.” Let me be clear, they didn’t draw a picture of Mohammed and then put a big mascot costume over it, they just drew the costume.
To give perspective on “brave,” this was around the time that Theo Van Gough was killed for making a film that basically just said, “You know, perhaps Muslim countries could treat women better.” That’s it.
And it cost him his life.
This was also a time when newspapers showing depictions of Mohammed received credible bomb threats.
How did Trey and Matt respond? They planned to show Mohammed in an episode. To embrace the controversy and show that their show did not recognize sacred cows.
They were threatened repeatedly on the internet and were ultimately censored by Comedy Central who “didn’t want to offend people of the Muslim faith.”
How did Trey and Matt respond? They did another Mohammed show, this time featuring the central figures of every religion they could. Mohammed was the only figure not depicted doing something completely offensive and blasphemous, but he was the only one censored, again.
According to the network, Buddah doing cocaine is fine, Mohammed standing in a room unacceptably offensive.
What does “Studio 60” hold up as their “too shocking to be aired” bit? A sketch cleverly entitled “Crazy Christians.” Cute, but it plays more like something a high school kid tries to throw out to be offensive in lieu of developing a personality.
I am an atheist, but even I am ready to protest Christian sketches. Not because they are offensive, but because they are overplayed and weak. I’ve heard it before and it doesn’t interest me.
They did better with a sketch called “Science Schmience” where different devout religious people competed to give the least scientific, most faith based answers to common scientific questions. I found that funnier because it that, for all the fighting between denominations, most religions agree on some pretty fundamental levels.
But, let’s not kid ourselves. The sketch was not intended to open eyes; it was intended to get nods of approval from people who already agreed with the sentiment.
Therein lies my main problem with the show. It’s a long sermon to the choir. All the politics espoused are done for the benefit of the enlightened who are already on message. The battles with the network are for the benefit of those who work in TV and see themselves as the thin blue line between freedom and religious totalitarianism.
I agree that there is a need for the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas. Without it there is no society. But having the freedom to express does not mean that you should be guaranteed an outlet. In the end if you are on a network TV show you are singing for your supper. You are asking someone else to pay for production and distribution. When you do that, you are giving up your unrestrained freedom. It’s like being a teenager. My house, my rules and if you don’t like it, move out.
It’s sad to say, but the truth of it is that when you work for a big production company the only time you have any creative freedom is when you write your first draft.
Right now, I am in a better position creatively than anyone with a TV show. Why? The show I do completely self-produced, self-promoted, self-distributed, and, most importantly, self-financed. If you don’t like it, you are invited not to listen and given a full and complete refund of the $0 you have paid for each episode. Yes we have no budget, but we also have no limits.
It’s what Adam Carolla and Kevin Smith have done, just on a much smaller scale. If you don’t like the rules, take your ball and go build a field where you can play the game you want to play, but don’t expect someone to keep writing checks to you without eventually writing the rules for you.
Sunday Aug 21, 2011
There are great TV shows, then there is The Wire.
Sunday Aug 21, 2011
Sunday Aug 21, 2011
Jacob Weisberg from slate.com said that "The Wire," was, "Surely the best TV show ever broadcast in America." While I agree, I find his statement limiting in that I do not believe there has ever been a show broadcast in any country on this planet that was as good as "The Wire." Yes, it is that good.
Buy why? What is it about this show, a show that only received 2 Emmy nominations (half of Charlie Sheen's total for "acting") that engenders such fierce loyalty? On this show Jim and special guest Phil from Bakersfield discuss that very thing.Thursday Dec 02, 2010
This is how you do it, Mr. Ritchie.
Thursday Dec 02, 2010
Thursday Dec 02, 2010
Iconic characters are a tricky business. Not only do you have obsessive fans with unreasonable expectations waiting to tear whatever new incarnation that comes along to pieces (they pretend to be excited, but really, they want nothing more than something to complain about. Personally I have never understood the fan boys who live to nit pick. I honestly want every new version of a beloved character from my childhood to be great. Wouldn’t it be awesome it would be if every time a sacred cow from our childhood was trotted out it was done in an amazingly original and compelling way?), but you also have a long and involved history that makes originality difficult.
Think about how hard it is to be original without contradicting the existing canon, or repeating something the history of long and varied incarnations, or going so daring as to alienate everyone that loves, likes, or has even heard of the character or story. Too traditional and it’s boring and flat. Too original and it comes off as tacky and obnoxious.
And that is just if we are talking about fairly literal translations. There are also the based on, inspired by, alluded to, suggested by, knock off, parody, and re-imagined/rebooted. The weight of material that exists on some characters is daunting to say the least.
In crime fiction is there any character more iconic than Sherlock Holmes? He is definitely one of the most iconic literary characters in general, but in crime fiction there isn’t any that come close. One could argue Philip Marlow or Sam Spade but more people identify both of those as Humphrey Bogart than would know the actual character name. They represent the noir detective, which is more of an idea than an actual person.
Is there anyone who sees the pipe, the magnifying glass, and the deerstalker cap and doesn’t think Holmes?
There are probably people in the jungle primeval who don’t, but they most likely know someone who does.
Holmes essentially gave birth to the detective genre. He wasn’t the first, Poe beat Doyle on that count, but he is definitely the most distinctive and the prototype for all those who would follow.
There are over 235 entries on IMDB for the character Sherlock Holmes. This number does not include the characters he inspired directly. If you look at those you get a list that includes names like House, Monk, Robert Goren (D’Onofrio’s character on Law and Order: CI), Basil of Baker Street (The Great Mouse Detective), and countless others.
Holmes is an embedded part of our culture.
Recently there have
been two adaptati
ons. I’m not going to say much on the first. Guy Richie made an interesting, flashy film that ultimately felt like a peanut butter sandwich made with the finest peanuts, hand picked in the mountains of China, roasted in a 2000 year old furnace, hand mashed by a monk sitting on top of the highest peak in Tibet, seasoned with Dead Sea salt, combined with jelly made from grapes that are only found in one region of France, hand picked and jellied by a virginal maiden whose beauty is only surpassed by her dedication to making the finest jellies, and placed between two slices of the finest artesian bread available to man. Fancy, yes. But it’s still a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. There is nothing wrong with a peanut butter sandwich, I LOVE peanut butter sandwiches. But I won’t call it anything other than a peanut butter sandwich. Richie did a fine job of sexing the character up, but he didn’t really do much more than that. I enjoyed it, but it really wasn’t what I wanted.
What I wanted was to see a fresh and exciting take on something I already loved, like the first time I had garlic mashed potatoes. I was really looking for that feeling of “Wait!! How is it possible for these to be better?!?!” A lot of people were looking for that, and a lot of people felt disappointed at what they got.
Thankfully the good folks over at the BBC were tuned in enough to let Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss have a go with their modern day reimagining of the character.
Thus was born “Sherlock.”
How does this version set itself apart?
Well, for starters there is the treatment of the characters. The problem with the Richie version was also the best thing about it. Making Holmes cool and a bit dodgy was an interesting angle that has never really been done before and is not only interesting conceptually, but it works in the context of this world.
However it is a problem because Holmes isn’t cool. His inability to get along with people stems less from a swaggering intellectualism and more from a total inability to understand basic human interactions as anything other than functional. Pleasantries and feelings get in the way. There is a point to every interaction, he gets to it and gets on with things.
This version presents Holmes as a distant genius who essentially is what he does. There isn’t much outside of the chase. His life is efficient and focused. And he realizes this. When called a psychopath he isn’t insulted or offended, but rather annoyed with the mislabeling and corrects it, “I’m a high functioning sociopath.” That sums this character up best. He is completely antisocial, but not amoral. He is as acutely unaware of those around him as he is aware of all the details that make them up. His obsession and solitude could be considered awkward if he were only aware of the feelings of those around him. Holmes is now a technology addicted loner. A brilliant man who gives himself the title “consulting detective” and arrives on the scene when the police are “out of their depth,” his interest is not the money, but the game. He is resented by the police, who openly refer to him as “the freak” and who are certain when they will be day when they are called out on a murder that will be by his hand.
Thankfully they didn’t get rid of the drug use. Although he has replaced his pipe with nicotine patches he still needs that crutch. His other drug use is hinted at by a quick look at Watson during a harassing police “drugs search” intended to get him to open up about a case.
Watson is toughened up a bit in this one as well. He is a former army doctor suffering from PTSD who needs the rush of cases to replace th thrill of combat. He is perplexed by Holmes, but seems to fully understand how amazing he is.
Holmes and Watson’s relationship is interesting because Holmes, who doesn’t so much like as tolerate people, seems to come as close to liking Watson as he is capable. I say this because Holmes doesn’t seem to like as much as tolerate most people.
Oh, and they also bring Mycroft (Sherlock’s older, smarter brother) into it, which makes me very happy.
The casting is also perfect.
Martin Freeman is a fantastic choice to play Watson. He has always had that everyman vibe and that has always been Watson’s role. His performance is solid and he definitely conveys how insane the world he finds himself in is.
This brings us to the absolute stand out. I am not afraid to go out on a limb and say that Benedict Cumberbatch was born to play Holmes. Not only does he have the physical presence and the perfect delivery, he also won the Nobel Prize for “Most British Name Ever.” I know that isn’t really important, but I will say this, “Isn’t it?”
In dealing with something new I am always reluctant to use absolute superlatives. There are a lot of people who use the words “best” and “most recent” as synonyms. While I won’t say that he is the best Holmes ever, I will say that he has the potential to be and it wouldn’t surprise me to see him regarded as such at some point.
He brings a cold intellectualism to the role that has been missing from recent portrayals. I’ve always thought that Holmes was a man who could never really fit in anywhere. How could he. Absolutely everything and everyone is an open book to him. He exits entirely in his head and can’t make sense of anything outside of it. Finally, after hundreds of interpretations, someone decided to show how much his brilliance also makes him a bit of an asshole. This is a fresh and intriguing performance that immediately makes this one of the best adaptations out there.
Now we get to what really sets this show apart, the technical execution. Or all the adaptations nobody has ever attempted to show how Sherlock’s mind works. They’ll give you the facts and the process, but never the inner workings. You never see how the world looks to him.
This show not only does it, but it uses an utterly brilliant and simple device to show it. As he surveys a scene his observations literally appear on the screen, his thought processing and combining details, cataloging what he sees and reaching logical conclusions. For the first time you understand how easy everything comes to him.
This thought process has always been the most fascinating thing about the character, and also the most difficult to capture. The most you ever get is an explanation of how, but it always felt like a trick, some impossible game that you could never play. It’s a subtle change but it makes Homes more accessible than he’s ever been.
Not to say it makes it seem easy or more possible, but the visualization gives you the elusive how. How does he see the world? How does he process and assemble that information? How does he make it look so easy? Finally we have a way to see it.
So far there have only been three episodes. Short seasons can be annoying, but with a show like this I think it’s a blessing. There isn’t enough to make you feel oversaturated or like it’s overstaying it’s welcome. The first is great, the second is a bit weaker, and the third is amazing and has one of the most maddening cliffhangers ever.
If you like detective fiction and especially if you like Sherlock Holmes you owe it to yourself to check this out. This is one of the few truly original and enjoyable treatments of a classic you are likely to see. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
Friday Nov 19, 2010
The Prisoner Vs. The Prisoner: The Final Battle
Friday Nov 19, 2010
Friday Nov 19, 2010
It's Jim again,
“It can’t get any worse. Really, how could it?” I kept telling myself that over and over again. That’s the kind of guy I am. I always think that we have hit the worst of things and the only direction left is up.
This mentality has led to many, MANY disappointments during my life. But nothing can dissuade my from this though process. That’s the kind of idiot I am.
So, after hitting the midway point of the massive train wreck in slow motion that is the remake of “The Prisoner,” I was content that there was at least a chance of a watchable show emerging despite Campbell’s vehement warnings to the contrary.
I am really quite stupid.
or
How do the final three episodes compare to the first three? Not favorably. Not favorably at all.
Massive Spoiler Alert Ahead!!!
From this point on, everything that you read will spoil one or both of the shows. If you have yet to see them and want to have some surprises then stop reading. If you just enjoy the articles and don’t care then go right on ahead.
1) The location of the village
Let’s start with the stickiest, and most obvious, wicket of the bunch out of the way first.
In the original The Village was located on The Island, just beside The Sea and The Mountains. It was real, and in it’s reality it is supremely terrifying. Think about it. You are in a place that exists and nobody on earth knows that it exists. Nobody knows you’re there because nobody knows where there is. It could be 5 miles from a major city and you would never know it.
Can you think of anything more terrifying? Not only are you trapped somewhere, but it’s somewhere that people aren’t only ignorant of, but that a group of powerful people are keeping anyone else from knowing about it. It’s like being kidnapped and held in a secret basement somewhere. You literally cease to exist.
Before I even got started with the second disk of the new version I had a theory about this detail that I dismissed out of hand for being “too stupid to be filmed.” I should not have done that.
In the remake, well… I really… I mean… You’re in someone’s dream!?
It’s like a knock off of “Inception” that came out while “Inception” was being filmed.
There’s a woman who is dreaming, like an architect, who discovered a state beyond unconsciousness and created a… I guess mental health spa of sorts. Oh, and people are found by this major corporation for some reason and are put into this dream spa without their knowledge or consent.
Oh, and apparently “The Prisoner” is a higher end version of “Inception” because this woman is upgraded to WiFi, because there aren’t any wires, or a central location, or any rhyme or reason. Don’t understand science, that’s ok because neither do the producers of this. Dreams work however you want them to.
Oh, and the woman who is The Village, because that’s what she is, she’s The Village, has to be given drugs to keep her asleep because she keeps waking up and that is causing holes to oblivion to pop up all over the place and if this sentence isn’t enough to keep you from watching than nothing is. Let me clarify, they give her the drugs in the dream state. That’s right, this dream world is so powerful that chemistry works there.
I am going to put all my feelings about this fantastically idiotic contrivance aside for a moment and focus on what is at the heart of my problem with this. Do you remember when you were a kid and that really obnoxious guy on the school bus would tell a "joke" that was some long, involved, drawn out adventure story about them being in a building being chased only to end up on the street almost getting run over and running away to a house where they get trapped and just when the baddies were about to get them they would drop the HILARIOUS "and then I woke up!!" punchline? First, if you don't remember that kid it's because you were that kid. That shit was annoying in elementary school because you got somewhat invested in what could be a cool story only to have the entire thing pulled out from under you and reduced to a pointless exercise in someone being an asshole in lieu of creativity. My problem, this isn't some stupid joke on a school bus! This is a high budget, internationally produced miniseries based on one of the best shows to ever hit the airwaves. What's the best they can do? An insulting, contrived, pointless joke of a plot twist that devalues the entire show while adding absolutely nothing to it.
In summary, it’s very scary and surreal in the original, and very, VERY stupid in the remake.
2) The Nature of the Village
This one is a biggie. Why are these people there?
The original is somewhat brilliant in the way this is handled. As cruel and fucked up as it is, The Village makes sense. What happens to a spy when he retires? Is it safe for someone with that level of sensitive knowledge, who has seen and done things that need to be kept secret to just be set loose upon the world with no official ties to the agencies they can compromise? There is a significant amount of danger out there for those people, not just from a national security standpoint, but from a personal safety one as well.
Think about it. At that point you are a private citizen with no extra support or protection. What is to keep an enemy power from just snatching you up and torturing you until you tell what you know?
Why not set up a place where those people can live out their lives in relative comfort and absolute safety? I’m not saying it’s right, but there is a logic to it.
Then there is the flipside to that coin. Who really runs the island? The assumption is that 6 is being held by his former bosses, but there is absolutely nothing to support that. It is as likely that he is being held and interrogated by an enemy power.
The only thing that is clear about The Village is that 6 is there to be interrogated. This clarity of purpose creates a clearly defined conflict. This goes along with the constant rotation of 2. The Village is a prison with a purpose; if the warden is unable to fulfill that purpose he is replaced.
In the batshit insane dream world that is the remake the purpose is unclear to say the least. It is repeatedly mentioned that it is a sort of intensive dream therapy, and that the people who are in the program are chosen without their knowledge or consent. As nefarious as this sounds, the people behind the scenes can at least claim altruistic motives.
But it is still unclear. Why does it exist? Why and how are these people chosen? What is the motivation behind the therapy? From a strictly logical standpoint this thing is a fucking nightmare because there is no logic to it.
Don’t believe me? Which of these sounds more plausible?
1) A top secret government agency develops an ultra high security detention center for people who know things that make their continued freedom a risk.
2) A top secret government agency develops an ultra high security detention center to interrogate high ranking agents of enemy governments.
3) A corporation of some sort, which has unlimited access to oddly personal video footage of people all over the world, creates a high tech, dream based mental health clinic which is used to help people who have been coerced into living in a surreal dream village while they may or may not be able to continue with their normal lives and are either completely aware or unaware that they are being treated in the dream spa.
Does one of these seem slightly less likely/more insane than the others?
3) The nature of Number 2 vs. the role of Number 6.
This is the key to the entire series.
Originally, 2 is a nameless bureaucrat whose personality is defined by their approach to the job. They are the symbolic faces of the machine who serve as functionary parts of it. 2 is easily replaced and not the absolute power. The different personalities are representative of the different ways power can be abused. Some come with a friendly face, other with an iron fist, while others are coldly clinical. There is a clear statement here that the function of power in a system is to serve those above you.
In having the power structure set up this way it makes the entire nature of The Village impossible to figure out. Is everyone there a prisoner or is it an elaborate trap set up to extract information from 6? It’s never made clear.
Something else that is interesting, 6 never reacts to 2 as if 2 were a new person. The face, the personality, and the methodology change, but 6 always reacts to them as if they have been there the entire time. Why? Simple, it shows that 6 realizes that 2 is simply a functionary of those above him. His identity is irrelevant because he is a symbol and 6 is at war with the meaning of the symbol, not the symbol itself.
While each episode has different thematic and allegorical ideas that struggle is the overall thematic thread running through it all.6 represents the converse of this, the strong willed individual fighting to maintain his identity in the face of absolute control and conformity. There is a clear differentiation between the two; power and control versus freedom and individuality. This balance drives the show and gives it meaning. Without this struggle there is no point to any of it.
Speaking of no point…
In the remake 2 becomes some benevolent father figure who is trying to assist people. There isn’t any motivation for what he does or any logic behind how he does it. I guess there could be some commentary on corporate omnipresence and the loss of personal freedom but there isn’t any time given to develop that theme. It just sort of appears at the end.
2 appears as some heredity titled all powerful mayor of a desert community. He is the only authority and he answers to nobody. There have been other number 2s throughout The Village’s history (we learn this when 6 goes undercover at a school, it’s a stupid as it sounds), but it is clearly a title, not a job.
Without the struggle between the all powerful system threatening to crush the will of the individual there is no philosophical battle being fought. The Village goes from this enigmatic surreal symbol to a functioning, albeit bizarre community where one man doesn’t fit and it is never really made clear why.
This may not sound like much but losing this kills the philosophical meaning of the entire show.
4) The identity of number 1
This is something that pissed viewers off a LOT originally. So, who is number 1? Well, let’s look at the opening credits of the show and I think you will be surprised at what you can learn:
Number Six: Who are you?
Two: The new Number Two.
Number Six: Who is Number One?
Two: You are Number Six.
Doesn’t sound like much, does it? Well, look at the inflection.
Number Six: Who is Number One?
Two: You are Number Six.
Change the tone a little and you get…
Number Six: Who is Number One?
Two: You are Number Six.
That’s right, you go through all of this and find out that 6 is actually1. There are a LOT of logistical debates around this. Questions like, “Does 2 or the controller hear 6’s voice on the phone?” are fairly common.
But that’s missing the point. What is this trying to say? Who really has the power? What does it take to recognize that power? By showing 6 that he is the enigmatic 1 you open a massive philosophical can of worms. It is the quintessence of thought provocation because the meaning of it depends entirely on your thought process.
But in the remake…
1 is apparently God. Or 1 could be the wife. You know the person who discovered the dream state and is somehow the wireless access point to The Village. There is no attempt to explain this. All I can assume is that 2 is 2 and not 1 in this because 2 was 2 and not 1 in the original. The numbering system appears arbitrary so there is no real significance to 2 being 2.
Honestly, this is one of the most annoying parts of the show, and that is saying something because this fucking thing brings the annoyance with an 18 wheeler.
5) The resolution
So, how does it all work out in the end?
In the original 6 discovers 1, and is then taken by flatbed truck (it sound silly and is, but it makes sense when you see it) back to his London apartment where he is apparently free to go about his life.
So what I’m saying here, is that it is somewhat anti-climatic if taken literally, but is completely unresolved if taken otherwise. Is he really free? What happens to The Village? What does he do from here?
It’s a touch maddening, but there is a method to it. The show is meant to fuck with our ideas of how a story can be told and in that way the ending to the original is perfect.
The new one has 6 taking over for 2, one of his romantic interests becoming the new host, it is still unclear if people wake up and live normal lives, the other woman is cast off and forgotten entirely, and basically the entire thing is a hot pile of garbage.
The reason for the conflict is never fully developed, you don’t know anyone’s motivations, 6 doesn’t make sense in this world that doesn’t make sense, and therefore the ending can be nothing but disappointing because there is no emotional weight placed on how things turn out. Is it good or bad that he is staying? What did he lose both physically and philosophically, what did he gain? They never even come close to letting you know, therefore you don’t care, and therefore the ending is pointless. They never even hint at why 6 is so special as to be desired for this position.
As strange as this will sound, given what I’ve said about the original, this thing makes no sense. The difference is, it’s trying to make sense. The original is an attempt at deconstruction, allegory, and post modern story telling. It doesn’t make sense because it’s not supposed to make sense. The new one tries and fails.
Which brings me to the root of all the problems.
6) Thematic conclusion
How is this one different from the last one?
This show was always about more than it was about. The events on screen were always tied to a larger idea. While the episode might be about an election it was really about how the circus of politics turns everyone involved, including the voters, into puppets and that anyone really trying to follow their ideological beliefs is doomed in that arena.
There are many layers present at all times.
So, the show ends 6 finds out he is 1, he gets transported back to his home and everything appears to be ok?
What does that mean? Well, that is completely up to the viewer.
Personally, I think it’s saying that we are all the wardens of our own prison and that we can free ourselves by simply acknowledging that fact. You might have a different idea; let me know what it is. I actually am interested in discussing this.
That’s the thing about this show; there is potential for intelligent discourse about its meaning.
And for as anticlimactic as some people find the ending at the very least there is a clear sign that the major conflicts have been resolved and the major questions answered. Now, it might all just be another trap by 2, but as far as we see things are cleared up.
Now the remake has a problem on this front because there is more time spent on making, eating, and discussing wraps than on developing an overall theme or series of themes.
Because no weight is given to any action how can there be any weight given to a conclusion. There is nothing at stake at any point. It’s as if you are expected to recognize 6 as the protagonist and be on his side because of that, and that 2 must then be the bad guy.
Had there been any, ANY attempt at adding a level of subtext, or even a hint of meaning or message this could have played, but given how carelessly it was handled there was no hope.
I am going to put all my feelings about this fantastically idiotic contrivance aside for a moment and focus on what is at the heart of my problem with this. Do you remember when you were a kid and that really obnoxious guy on the school bus would tell a "joke" that was some long, involved, drawn out adventure story about them being in a building being chased only to end up on the street almost getting run over and running away to a house where they get trapped and just when the baddies were about to get them they would drop the HILARIOUS "and then I woke up!!" punchline? First, if you don't remember that kid it's because you were that kid. That shit was annoying in elementary school because you got somewhat invested in what could be a cool story only to have the entire thing pulled out from under you and reduced to a pointless exercise in someone being an asshole in lieu of creativity. My problem, this isn't some stupid joke on a school bus! This is a high budget, internationally produced miniseries based on one of the best shows to ever hit the airwaves. What's the best they can do? An insulting, contrived, pointless joke of a plot twist that devalues the entire show while adding absolutely nothing to it.
I really don’t think there is any more to say. Well, maybe there is, I just don’t want to go into it any more. This new version has me scratching my head in utter disbelief and wanting to return to the original, which I will do presently.
Oh, by the way, the newly remastered Blu-Ray that just came out is spectacular. It looks brand new. Do yourself a favor.
Be seeing you.